The most economically efficient way to pay for B is to allow the free market to drive the cost of care so low that...
Talking about free market efficiencies is a bit like talking about the effect of Newtonian forces on a spherical cow. Very useful to learn from in an undergrad setting but rarely sufficient to capture real world systems.
What you actually want from policy is something like a trajectory toward the best expected result in existing markets over reasonable times. This is much more practical than a provably optimal result in an oversimplified model. Models can be very useful, but the map is not the territory.
>What you actually want from policy is something like a trajectory toward the best expected result in existing markets over reasonable times.
What I don't want from policy is you* deciding for me what results should be aimed for and then forcing me to maximize your personal pet project. If you have good arguments that something should be funded, you don't need to force me to do it.
*: The you here is proverbial. Feel free to insert Donald Trump as an example of the type of person who would have a say in my healthcare options.
I suspect this comment is largely mistargeted, policy is in no way equivalent to force, though some policies may engage it.
Unless you are arguing for a fairly pure form of anarchism (good luck with that, if so) you have policy work and the desire to improve it. It is a reasonable expectation that doing so empirically will vastly outperform doing so ideologically in any scenario like healthcare reform.
What you actually want from policy is something like a trajectory toward the best expected result in existing markets over reasonable times. This is much more practical than a provably optimal result in an oversimplified model. Models can be very useful, but the map is not the territory.